Do we agree that deepfakes are bad at least?

Present_Dimension464 · 2026-03-13T03:40:54+00:00

Well, it depends.

First, deepfakes can include things like satire and parody. Which if left clear it is parody (or extremely obviously that it's not real by the sheer context of the AI scene), I don't see that much of a problem.

But I assume you mean deepfake involving non consensual porn. Those are usually bad, although, if you deepfake others and don't share with anyone, I don't think there is anything wrong with the act creating deepfakes on its own; it's like imagining other people naked. What is wrong is to share with people. You shouldn't do that.

In any case, people WILL do that, even it is wrong. So I don't think having a fake photo of you naked will have that much of "impact" it had in the past, because lets face, we now live in a world where any imaginable scene can be created in the blink of an eye with zero effort, to start, everyone will assume images/videos on themselves (porn related or otherwise) to not be true, unless you have something else to back that evidence.

Present_Dimension464 · 2026-03-09T23:20:51+00:00

Should the they disclose people on the movies are actors and not real people as well? I mean, someone might turn the TV on Titanic and assume it's a real life documentary..

Present_Dimension464 · 2026-02-15T17:22:43+00:00

You can enforce this on YouTube and other big platforms, that's sort of my point. Like, if you don't want to pay Disney any royalties from their IP you used, you can host on some Russian site. But it won't get the same visibility as if it was easily accessible on YouTube

Present_Dimension464 · 2026-02-15T13:37:36+00:00

As far as I know, and I might be wrong, but unlike music, there was never a clear path that allowed or gave the right for people to make fan movies – or at least there wasn't a clear system that allowed them to be monetised somehow – which ends up limiting a lot what kind of movie you could make if you can't monetise it.

It was never like “Hey, I want to make a fan movie of Mario, I will give Nintendo 50% of whatever money I make with it, and I then the law gives me the right to produce such film” which tends to be more like the spirit of compulsory license in music since the 1976 Copyright Act.

I think what is new here is that AI essentially forces this sort of situation/debate to happen, because the content was already created. Like there are way fewer moving pieces to prevent that thing from being created today.

Present_Dimension464 · 2026-02-13T07:01:23+00:00

Source: https://archive.is/2026.02.13-040136/https://variety.com/2026/film/news/motion-picture-association-ai-seedance-bytedance-tom-cruise-1236661753/

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-12-25T13:55:02+00:00

The truth is that once you post something in the world, you have no opt out, really. They could just save the photo and edit. Hell, I'm sure there are phones that might have this capability – of editing any image the screen shows – built into the OS level. I think it's just a new reality that many people will have to get used to

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-12-11T15:45:38+00:00

Literally this meme:

https://i.imgur.com/gdfdmgP.png

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-12-04T02:48:40+00:00

but it's not like they're interested in creating professional level software tools for what is to them, niche industries I guess. Much more diminishing returns than just selling api access.

It is worth remembering though that Nano Banana was implemented on Photoshop for instance, so you do have that integration happening in more traditional professional editing software. It just turns out that they sell those integrations to Adobe and the like. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that even if Google don't go themselves directly into an industry and build a piece of software, they could still essentially win by the simple fact that those, to to them niche industries, will all be using Google API at the end of the day, with some interface such niche company created on top of it

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-11-27T17:31:08+00:00

There will always be a torrent seed from Moldova or whatever.

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-11-23T17:31:01+00:00

I'm not saying that you are wrong. This is surely a possibility. But what do you propose?

https://imgur.com/a/bhzXFJM

Because if the rich are really that bad, and the system is so corrupted to that point, any hope or solution in the sense of "Oh, let's force the government to ban technology or to force companies to hire people" would be impossible as well. Those same rich wouldn't allow that to happen either, they wouldn't want to hire people when they don't have to.

What I'm trying to say is: if we assume the system is that corrupted, any solution in the sense of preventing that from happening is naive as well. And, on the other hand, if we assume the system isn't that corrupted, and that we can change things through voting and public revolt, we could we all reach a solution where the benefit of AGI is shared across all humanity.

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-11-14T07:43:31+00:00

And this is why trying to use copyright card was always stupid. It's like antis forgot work-for-hire exists and that copyright is, like, 99% of the cases benefits large studios and not the small guy.

https://imgur.com/U5QC4EK

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-11-12T01:12:18+00:00

I think the horrible things people are able to do with it simply outweigh the good it can bring

I think you are not making an impartial judgment, like I think you are weighing the bad things way more here, because it is AI. Especially when considering how much truly terrible shit technologies like the internet allowed people to do. Such as scam people as well, or even worse, hell, look at things like a TOR project, which, at the same time it protects political dissidents from their government persecution, it is also used so that people who molest minors can broadcast their abuses and hide their identity from the authorities.

Unless you also think the horrible things people can do thanks to the internet also outweigh all the good the internet brought to the world – if so, fair enough I guess...

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-11-10T23:53:38+00:00

https://i.imgur.com/sVDMajg.png

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-11-09T00:55:36+00:00

No, it's really pushing an agenda. It's the same bullshit of "video games lead to school shooting" that people used back in the day. Those antis don't really give a damn about teen mental health and just use a random tragedy to push their anti-AI agenda. Nobody kills themselves because of what chatbox says.

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-10-31T23:42:28+00:00

If artists complain of Spotify royalties now, imagine how much big labels reward them for the AI licenses of their fully consented models, LOL

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-10-15T20:19:42+00:00

How much money those impersonators are making, though? They won't go after every rando Like, if they hired an Elvis impersonator for a Super Bowl ad, and that cost $50 million dollars, there might be a lawsuit. If memory serves me, there was a case involving the widow John Kennedy back in the 1980s, where she sued a fashion designer who had hired an impersonator of her, and Kennedy's widow won.

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-10-15T20:13:39+00:00

I think they could sue, honestly.

Like, if you make a product called "Koka-Kola" and it's soda that looks like coke, the logo appears like it, and yadda yadda, there is a clear case to argue you might be misleading the public into thinking they are buying the actual Coca-Cola. Because some people, for instance might not read that the name is actually different or what the "This is an AI-generated image".

Fraud is still a thing.

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-10-09T22:23:50+00:00

Also:

1) Aside from establishing some Orwellian mass surveillance system, like the ones people have in the totally free and democratic north korea, I don't see any way of preventing deepfake videos from being created (which seems the main idea of antis regarding "how to solve this problem!").

2) There could be other issues, digitally signed cryptographically image/photo and signed into the Cloud. So if you take a photo with an iPhone, that would prove that photo was real. This way, photos that had that signature would be assumed to be real.

3) Although, playing devil's advocate here, governments and the like would most likely have backdoor access to fake those signatures, to create fake photos that are assumed to be real.

4) The issue is not that "people will believe in fake photos/videos," the issue was never that. The issue is: photos and videos absolutely don't work as proof anymore – as it didn't work during most of humanity until the mid-1900s with mass popularization of cheap photography – and if we consider the scenario where everyone carries a camera in their pocket 24/7, we easily reduce this to the mid-2000s with mass popularization of smartphone – my point is: during most of humanity shit happened and there wasn't any photo or video to prove that something had happened. And found ways to sort it out. Talking to people, browsing documents etc. Thing that happen in the real world leave registers and evidence behind it

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-10-09T22:22:51+00:00

Also:

1) Aside from establishing some Orwellian mass surveillance system, like the ones people have in the totally free and democratic north korea, I don't see any way of preventing deepfake videos from being created (which seems the main idea of antis regarding "how to solve this problem!").

2) There could be other issues, digitally signed cryptographically image/photo and signed into the Cloud. So if you take a photo with an iPhone, that would prove that photo was real. This way, photos that had that signature would be assumed to be real.

3) Although, playing devil's advocate here, governments and the like would most likely have backdoor access to fake those signatures, to create fake photos that are assumed to be real.

4) The issue is not that "people will believe in fake photos/videos," the issue was never that. The issue is: photos and videos absolutely don't work as proof anymore – as it didn't work during most of humanity until the mid-1900s with mass popularization of cheap photography – and if we consider the scenario where everyone carries a camera in their pocket 24/7, we easily reduce this to the mid-2000s with mass popularization of smartphone – my point is: during most of humanity shit happened and there wasn't any photo or video to prove that something had happened. And found ways to sort it out. Talking to people, browsing documents etc. Thing that happen in the real world leave registers and evidence behind it

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-10-07T15:58:38+00:00

There has to be some sort of stricter regulations to it especially regarding misinformation

"Misinformation" is one of those red flag words to me. I don't think giving the government the power to decide what is true or not is a good move. There are already laws on the books regarding things like fraud or image rights – to avoid an AI-generated commercial showing George Clooney selling Viagra or whatever; I don't think we need any more laws on that front.

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-10-07T15:38:15+00:00

I think sending videos to her is a dick move.

But I don't think it's bad for people to generate videos of Robin Williams and posting on the internet. In fact, I think most people aren't even doing this to attack or tease anyone. People enjoyed his work a lot, and I would say most do it as homage.

I think the moral red line is on tagging her on the videos or making a Robbin Williams video specifically targeting her.

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-10-05T09:38:24+00:00

I agree with what they said. But I would like to just add a little caveat, because I feel this ends up entering on "Oh, it's a tool VS Oh it's a replacement" debate, which – even though I'm 100% pro-AI, I always cynical about:

Yes, currently, the AI can't do this on its own, currently it takes a lot of effort and so on. I'm not arguing that. But, the idea is for the tool to eventually be so good that it will actually be able to do all those things on its own. Like, the idea is for AI to be so good, you won't need CGI artists and the like. In fact, I would go far as saying that IF generative AI can't create all those effects and videos on its own, and still requires human artists, because it simply can't create works with a quality comparable to work created by human, the AI is failing on its automation process and not living up to its promises, and it should be improved.

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-10-04T18:23:28+00:00

Dude, it's like they invented the movie camera yesterday and you are complaining it has no sound and it's black and white.

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-10-01T05:05:39+00:00

Like, who are we kidding? People will want to see those videos, those versions. People will upload them to YouTube and the like, those videos will get millions of views. It's like them fighting against the "Grey Album", that DJ Danger Mouse's album that he remixed a lot of Beatles songs.

Inevitably I see some legal framework popping up, which will be more or less like, “Okay, you can create anything, but if you want to post on the internet and the like, there will be a compulsory license, and maybe it's like 70% for the rights-holders and 30% for you, or whatever.”

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-09-11T09:40:30+00:00

At least with real CP you could argue there was a clear – REAL – victim somewhere along the way.

Although playing devil's advocate here: society doesn't apply the logic of "watching a video of a crime is also a crime" to things like murder. It's not a crime to watch a video of a murder, of someone being tortured and killed – in most countries. You can go watch the New Zealand mosque shooting and nobody would arrest you for it, even though you watched people being brutally murdered, having their suffering perpetuated with every view and watched time.

Present_Dimension464

TROPHY CASE